Comparison of Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions and Distortion Products Otoacoustic Emissions as the Hearing Screening Methods in the Same Population of Normal Newborns
10.3969/j.issn.1006-7299.2017.03.004
- VernacularTitle:正常出生新生儿瞬态诱发耳声发射与畸变产物耳声发射听力筛查结果比较
- Author:
Wenyang HAO
;
Yingying SHANG
;
Daofeng NI
;
Zhiqiang GAO
;
Chunxiao XU
;
Fengrong LI
;
Suju WANG
;
Cuixia ZHAO
- Keywords:
Neonates;
Hearing screening;
TEOAE;
DPOAE
- From:
Journal of Audiology and Speech Pathology
2017;25(3):234-237
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the results of TEOAE and DPOAE in the same population of normal newborns, to provide information on choosing appropriate screening tools.Methods A two-steps protocol was taken with the first screening during the first 48 to 72 hours of birth and rescreened from one to two months old if the newborns failed the first screening.For each step of screening, TEOAE and DPOAE were performed simultaneously using AccuScreen hearing screening instrument (Madsen-GN Otometrics, Taastrup, Denmark).A total of 1 062 normal newborns (F/M=508/554) delivered in Peking Union Medical College Hospital were enrolled in this research for the first screening.Infants who failed either TEOAE or DPOAE screening in the first screening were referred to a second screening.Among them, 135 performed both DPOAE and TEOAE in the second step.The newborns who failed the second screening would receive ABR when they were 3 months old.Results In the first screening,the failure rate for TEOAE was 11.0% (117/1 062) and 13.7% (145/1 062) for DPOAE.In the second screening step, the failure rates were 17.8% (24/135) and 20.7% (28/135) for TEOAE and DPOAE, respectively.Chi-square and Fisher's test showed that the failure rates of DPOAE were significant higher than TEOAE for both steps (P<0.001).The agreements between TEOAE and DPOAE were 96.0% and 95.6% for the first and second steps respectively, and the kappa values were 0.817 and 0.857.As to the average time taken to accomplish the screening for one ear, TEOAE was 24±25 s and DPOAE was 40±34 s during the first screening;in the rescreening, TEOAE was 52±41 s and DPOAE was 73±62 s.Paired-t tests showed that the differences between DPOAE and TEOAE testing time were statistically significant (P=0.000) in both screening steps.Finally, 7 newborns (10 ears) were diagnosed conductive hearing loss(except 1 ear was sensorineural hearing loss).Conclusion As a screening tool, TEOAE got lower refer rates and took less time than DPOAE implicating TEOAE a better screening tool for normal neonates.
